Delhi District Court
Land Measuring 3 Bigha Comprising Of ... vs . on 26 April, 2010
1
In the court of Ashwani Sarpal, Additional District Judge-05,
West District, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Smt. Kailash Wati
vs.
Union of India & another
(LAC no. 7/09/07)
Award no.--01/DCW/2006-07
Village:--------------Bakkarwala
Date of institution--24-8-2007
Date of decision:----26-4-2010
(Reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
*****************************************
JUDGMENT:-
For the purposes of construction of 100 meter link road connecting National Highway-10 to Dwarka Sub-City in village Mundka-Bakkarwala and to give effect to other schemes of Planned Development of Delhi, agricultural land measuring 199 Bigha 18 Biswa in village Bakkarwala was acquired on the basis of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act dated 17-6-2005. Notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 31-5-2006. Land Acquisition Collector announced a formal award bearing no. 1/DCW/2006-07 on 11-8-2006 and fixed the value of the land at Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre (or to say Rs. 3,27,083.33 per Bigha or Rs. 16,354.16 per Biswa). No compensation was awarded for any structure on the ground that no authorized structure was found standing on the acquired land. Collector also did not find any single tree in whole of the acquired land but found only one tubewell. The possession of 2 the land however could not take place till the date of announcement of award but it took place on 2-2-2007.
Land measuring 3 Bigha comprising of Khasra no. 55/16/1 (3-0) belonging to petitioner was also acquired under the above award. Petitioner being not satisfied with the compensation amount got her petition under section 18 of the Act referred to the court for enhancement of the same on various grounds. She described the compensation amount as inadequate and unjustified and demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yard along with other statutory benefits. She also claimed compensation for structure and trees.
Respondents Union of India and Delhi Development Authority contested the matter and described the compensation amount as justified, correct and reasonable. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, my ld. Predecessor framed following issues vide order dated 20-3-2008;
1) What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2) To what amount of enhancement in compensation, the petitioner is entitled? OPP
3) Whether the reference is barred by limitation? OPR
4) Relief.
In order to prove her case, petitioner no. 1 examined herself as PW-1 and also examined Sh. Suresh Chand, clerk from office of Sub-Registrar as PW-2 who produced four sale deeds Ex. PW1/1 to 4. On behalf of UOI, one sale deed Ex. R-1 and copy of award Ex. R-2 were only tendered in evidence. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as various case laws cited. My decision on above mentioned issues is as under;
Issues no. 1 and 2:-
Both these issues are required to be dealt with together. The relevant date to assess the market value of the acquired land in question is 17- 3 6-2005 when the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued.
Delhi High Court in Ishwar Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector 2008 VI AD (Delhi) 209 dealt with the powers of Collector while conducting an enquiry under section 11 of Land Acquisition Act for determining the compensation amount in respect of acquired land. Court held that powers given to Collector under this Act is quasi-judicial in nature and he is bound to examine the objections raised by the land owners, briefly dealt with the same in arriving at a conclusion and take into consideration all the circumstances relevant for proper and correct market value of the acquired land.
Here in the present case, if the contents of the award Ex. R-2 are considered, then certainly it can be said that the Collector had not dealt with the matter for determination of compensation in proper manner and had not taken into consideration all the relevant facts. He apparently had not dealt with all the contentions of the land owners. He had not discussed any document or sale deeds of the areas which were very much available as produced on record now by the parties during trial. It is very strange that in a big area of agricultural land comprising of 199 Bigha 18 Biswa, he could not found even a single tree. Award does not show that he had personally inspected the area before assessing the quantum of compensation of the acquired land. He relied upon minimum govt. rates given in circular dated 9-8-2001 (applicable with effect from 1-4-2001) for assessing the market value but no appreciation of about four years and three months was given. It is mentioned in the award that several factors including sale deeds, awards announced in recent past etc. were taken into consideration but no detail of any of those sale deeds or awards is found mentioned in Ex. R-2. Accordingly, it is held that award Ex. R-2 is not complete and proper in all respects.
As per award Ex. R-2, agricultural land was acquired by the govt. PW-1 also admitted in her cross examination that acquired land in question was being used for agricultural purposes only. This agricultural land could not have been used for any other purposes due to restrictions imposed under Delhi Land Reforms Act. Petitioner has not brought on record any document to show that any notification under section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act had 4 been issued to declare this village as urbanized or user of land has been permitted to be changed. Hence in absence of any such notification or permission, it has to be held that acquired land in question is situated in rural area and it could not have been used for any commercial or industrial purposes till date even after acquisition. Otherwise also land has been acquired by govt. not for any commercial or industrial purposes but only for construction of link road being used for general public. These factors have to be taken into consideration while determining the potentiality of the acquired land.
Following points raised during arguments on basis of evidence led by the parties on record are being discussed as under one by one.
a) Yearly appreciation of land:-
Counsel for the petitioner relied upon case laws Bedi Ram vs. Union of India 93 (2001) DLT 150, Rameshwar Solanki vs. Union Of India 57 (1995) DLT 410, Om Prakash vs. UOI 2010 (114) DRJ 402 and Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese vs. Union Of India 2002 VI AD (Delhi) 315 and argued that normally 12% appreciation per year is given by the courts on proved sale deeds or established previous market rates etc. so atleast this much appreciation should have been allowed to the petitioner even on the market value as fixed under the award. However as per decision of Supreme Court given in Mehtab Singh vs. State of Haryana AIR 1995 Supreme Court 667, grant of 12% increase in price in each and every acquisition is not necessary. It depends upon the degree of escalation in the market.
Supreme Court in The General Manager, ONGC vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel JT 2008 (9) SC 480 held that increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increase in rural areas would at best be around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum, in the absence of evidence of sudden spurts or fall in prices.
Village Bakkarwala is situated adjacent to village Mundka part of which has been notified as Industrial area as per notification of Delhi Govt. dated 17-11-2007 Ex. PW1/7. However this subsequent notification of adjacent village is of no help to the petitioner as the relevant date to assess the 5 compensation amount in this matter is of 17-6-2005 when notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued. Thus the notification Ex. PW1/7 cannot be taken into consideration and is of no consequences. Village Bakkarwala has not been urbanized till date and land in question was being used for agricultural purposes only. Nothing is brought on record that village Bakkarwala has been developed to such an extent that it virtually does not fall within the category of rural area. However keeping in view the fact that it is a part of National Capital and was having proximity to the developed areas of Delhi especially Dwarka residential sub-city, I treat the same as semi-urban area and deem it proper to give appreciation of 10% per annum, if otherwise is held applicable. Delhi High Court in Pratap Singh vs. UOI LAA no. 193 of 2006 decided on 19-12-2008 also approved appreciation of 10% p.a. in respect of land acquired in nearby village Tikri Kalan.
b) Sale deeds of same and adjoining village:-
There is a difference in between minimum price and fair market value. In normal circumstances, fair market value is higher than the minimum price but to what an extent it is higher, the onus is upon the petitioner to establish it. An important way to assess the market value of the acquired land is to see at what rate similar type of lands in the same or nearby areas were sold during the relevant period as held by Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao AIR 1997 SC 2625 and APMC vs. Land Acquisition Collector JT 1996 (9) SC 432. In these cases, theory of prudent buyer was involved and it was held that the judge should sit in the arm chair of the willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer, he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions.
Sale deeds relating to the acquired land or of the same village executed within a reasonable time which otherwise are genuine is the best piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land as per view of Supreme Court given in Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition vs. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666. Thus the reliance upon 6 awards, judgments and even the policy of the govt. would be made by the court only in absence of such best evidence.
PW-1 relied upon four sale deeds Ex. PW1/1 to 4 whereas counsel for UOI also placed on record one sale deed Ex. R-1 to show the alleged market value of the similar type of properties in the same and adjoining areas. Supreme Court in Cement Corporation of India vs. Durya 2004 (2) All India Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 540 held that certified copies of sale transactions itself are admissible in evidence as it attaches presumption of genuineness and there is no need to examine vendor or vendee but if this presumption is rebutted by any other evidence then there is a necessity to examine vendor or vendee. The details of sale deeds produced by both the parties are as under;
Sale deeds produced by the petitioner
Ex. No. Village Area Date Sale Average value
where land sold of sale consideration In rupees
situated in rupees
(stamp duty
not included)
PW1/1 Hiran 4 Bigha 5-8-03 75,00,000 15,62,500/- per
Kudna 16 Biswa Bigha or
(or 1 78,125/- per
acre or Biswa
96
Biswa)
PW1/2 Bakkarwala 34 Bigha 14-6-06 3,13,50,000 9,16,666.66 per
4 Biswa Bigha or
(or 684 45,833.33 per
Biswa) Biswa
PW1/3 Bakkarwala 9 Bigha 21-11-06 1,24,83,332 13,79,373.70
1 Biswa per Bigha or
(181 68,968.68 per
Biswa) Biswa
7
PW1/4 Bakkarwala 9 Bigha 21-11-06 1,42,41,000 14,53,163.20
16 per Bigha or
Biswa 72,658.16 per
(196 Biswa
Biswa)
Sale deed produced by respondents
Ex. No. Village Area Date Sale Average value
where land sold of sale consideration
situated in rupees
(stamp duty
not included)
R-1 Bakkarwala 2 Bigha 10-1-05 7,85,000 3,27,083.32 per
8 Biswa Bigha or
(48 16,354.16 per
Biswa) Biswa
Scale used:- (1 Acre=4 Bigha 16 Biswa=96 Biswa)
(1 Bigha=20 Biswa)
First of all sale deed Ex. R-1 dated 10-1-2005 produced by the respondents is being considered which is very near in time to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act i.e. 17-6-2005 but on the face of it the same appears to be undervalued. The value of this sale deed executed on 10-1-2005 still shows the price of land which was prevalent in the year 2001 as per circular dated 9-8- 2001. It appears impossible that from the period of 2001 to 2005, the minimum price was not increased even by single paisa. Accordingly this sale deed produced on behalf of respondents Ex. R-1 is liable to be rejected being not representing the true value.
Now come to four sale deeds produced by the petitioner out of which three are of village Bakkarwala and one is of village Hiran Kudna. When 8 sale deeds of same village in which land is acquired are available then sale deed of adjoining or nearby villages need not be looked into. Otherwise also it is not established on record even by single evidence that land situated in village Hiran Kudna and village Bakkarwala are similar in situation, location, potentiality and utility etc. Accordingly the sale deed Ex. PW1/1 produced by the petitioner pertaining to the different adjacent village Hiran Kudna cannot be taken into consideration when other three sale deeds on record of the same village are available. Hence only sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to 4 are left for determination of market value.
These three sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to 4 are of the period subsequent to the date of notification dated 17-6-2005 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Sale deed Ex. PW1/2 was executed after about one year whereas Ex. PW1/3 and 4 were executed after 1½ years of the date of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act.
PW-2 witness from office of Sub-Registrar had no personal knowledge about any of the sale deeds. Petitioner PW-1 admitted in her cross examination that sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 and 3 were neither executed nor registered in her presence. She had also no personal knowledge about the same. However sale deed Ex. PW1/4 was executed by petitioner herself.
The pieces of land as described in three sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to 4 were apparently sold to builders and construction houses whose main aim remains to raise construction of residential or commercial complexes in order to get profits and normally such builders purchase pieces of land at higher price. The land in this village Bakkarwala could not have been used for any other purpose except for agricultural. Even as on date, this village has not been urbanized and agricultural land cannot be used for any residential, commercial or industrial purposes. Apparently the land purchased under these sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to 4 has to be used by vendees in contravention of provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act and accordingly the increase of value of such land cannot be taken into consideration being hit by clause 8 of section 24 of Land Acquisition Act.
Counsel for petitioner relied upon Amar Singh vs. Union of india AIR 1985 Delhi 298 and argued that prospectus and possibilities of future 9 development ought to be taken into account in assessing the value of the land. However this case law is distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts and circumstances because firstly it is not brought on record by any single evidence how and in which manner future development in village would take place due to this acquisition. Secondly this acquisition had taken place for purpose of construction of link road and not for any commercial or industrial activity. Moreover mere likely use of adjoining pieces of lands purchased vide sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to 4 for setting up some residential or commercial complexes in future by builders in contravention of Delhi Land Reforms Act is also not a ground to take into consideration the value shown in these sale deeds under clause 5 of section 24 of the Act.
There is another reason also available to reject the sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to 4. Sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 was executed on 14-6-2006 at the rate of Rs. 45,833.33 per biswa whereas sale deed Ex. PW1/3 and 4 executed on the same day i.e. 21-11-2006 fetched Rs. 68,968.68 and Rs. 72,658.16 per biswa respectively. Sale deeds Ex. PW1/3 and 4 executed on the same day show lots of difference in the prices which creates doubt about its genuineness. It becomes highly doubtful that land in same village and situated nearby to each other would have so much difference in price when sold on the same day. There may be some special reasons available attached to these pieces of land sold under Ex. PW1/2 to 4 that its prices were comparatively much higher then the adjacent land including acquired land in question. Otherwise also it is not established what was the exact location, distance between the land sold under it and acquired land of the petitioner, advantages and facilities attached to it etc. The increase price of these sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to 4 may be due to some special value or advantage to the purchaser resulting in enhanced price. In absence of any evidence of similarity of nature, location, utility etc. of the pieces of land sold under sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to 4 as compared to the acquired land in question, these sale deeds cannot be relied upon and are liable to be rejected.
Otherwise also these sale deeds are relating to smaller areas as compared to the large tract of land acquired. These sale deeds of smaller areas cannot truly represent the market value of the much bigger size plots and in 10 this regard reliance can be placed upon decisions of Supreme Court given in cases Collector of Lakhimpur vs. Bhuban Chandra Dutta (1972) 4 SCC 236, Kausalya Devi vs. Land Acquisition Officer (1984) 2 SCC 324 and Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala Rajamallu (2003) 12 SCC 334 wherein it is held that normally sale transactions relating to smaller piece of land could not be a true test for determining compensation payable to the owners of large tract of land.
Petitioner relied upon decision of Delhi High Court given in case Dewan Anand Kumar vs. UOI AIR 1984 Delhi 208 in which it is held that judicial notice should be taken that price increases year by year unless rebutted by satisfactory evidence to the contrary. Even if it is presumed that there was an escalation in prices of lands in Delhi during the relevant years, then also it is very difficult to believe that prices would increase to an extent of more than 50 to 60 % within a period of about six months difference in execution of sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to 4 and to an extent of 250-400 times within period of 5-6 years from the date when minimum price of the land as fixed by govt. vide circular dated 9-8-2001 came into force. Thus these sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to 4 cannot be entertained to represent true market value as on the date of notification even if backward offloading calculation is taken so same are hereby rejected while relying upon the law laid down in case Satpal vs. Union of India AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3882.
The chances are also bright to presume that these sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to 4 were intentionally executed subsequently at higher rates by villagers (especially Ex. PW1/4 by petitioner herself) to claim enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land in question. Counsel for petitioner relied upon case law Special Deputy Collector vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625 and argued that sale transaction in which claimant himself is a party is the best piece of evidence and has to be relied upon but this judgment is of no help to the petitioner because this sale deed Ex. PW1/4 appears to be intentionally executed at inflated rates to get enhanced compensation in the present acquisition proceedings. In view of above discussions, these subsequent sale deeds are liable to be rejected in absence of any other evidence that due to sudden development in the area or 11 due to any other special reasons, prices in the village were all of sudden increased manifold.
In such circumstances, sale deeds produced by both the parties Ex. PW1/1 to 4 and R-1 cannot be held fit for determining the market value of the acquired land in question and thus are hereby rejected. In that situation, court has to rely upon other evidence brought on record.
c) Enhancement of compensation on basis of previous decision of court:-
In village Bakkarwala itself, earlier also some land was acquired vide notification dated 24-9-2003 and Collector assessed the compensation at Rs. 15,70,000 per Acre but court of Sh. O.P. Gupta, ld. ADJ in case titled as Parag P. Tripathi vs. Union of India, LAC no. 53/2006 decided on 24-5-2008 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 20,41,000/- per acre as per judgment Ex. PW1/5. Counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner should be given enhancement on the basis of value of land as determined under this judgment but I am not agreeing to this submission. First of all there is no dispute that this judgment Ex. PW1/5 is under challenge before the High Court and secondly it is not binding upon this court. In this judgment, court had granted enhancement at the rate of 12% p.a. but in view of above findings, petitioner is only entitled to enhancement at the rate of 10% only if is held entitled. Accordingly, the decision given by court of Sh. O.P. Gupta, ADJ vide Ex. PW1/5 is not helpful to the petitioner. The case law Gokal vs. State of Haryana AIR 1992 Supreme Court 150 cited by counsel for petitioner is held distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
(d) Minimum value of land as fixed by government:-
Land and Building Department of Delhi Govt. vide circular Ex. PW1/6 fixed the minimum value of agricultural land at Rs. 17,58,400/- per acre to be effective from 30-8-2005. This value was further enhanced to Rs. 53,00,000/- per acre with effect from 18-12-2007 vide circular dated 24-1- 2008 Ex. PW1/7.12
There is no dispute of the fact that earlier to it there was a circular dated 9-8-2001 under which minimum value of the agricultural land at Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre was fixed with effect from 1-4-2001. Reference of this circular can be found also in the award Ex. R-2 as on its basis, Collector fixed the compensation amount. Admittedly in between circular dated 9-8-2001 and 30-8-2005 Ex. PW1/6, no other circular showing minimum rate of the agricultural land was issued by the govt.
Delhi High Court in Jai Prakash vs. Union Of India, LA. APP. no. 783/06 decided on 4-7-08 held that purpose of fixing the minimum price for agricultural lands is not to check the tendency of undervaluation of land but has been fixed with a view to giving to the land owners a fair deal by stipulating a minimum price which the Collectors would keep in mind while determining compensation for the lands acquired from the owners. In this case, High Court by adding and offloading appreciation on two circulars regarding minimum value, fixed the market value of the land in question.
In the award Ex. R-2, minimum rates of agricultural land as fixed by the govt. circular dated 9-8-2001 applicable with effect from 1-4-2001 were relied upon by the Collector. Notification under section 4 of the Act in respect of acquired land of the petitioner was issued on 17-6-2005 nearly after about 4 years and 2½ months but no yearly appreciation was allowed by Collector. There is a justification in this demand of the petitioner that she should have been given minimum yearly appreciation as per law for about 4¼ years from 1- 4-2001 till 17-6-2005. Non-giving of any appreciation by the Collector to the land owners, who were wrongly deprived of the same makes out a ground for enhancement in compensation.
Rate of agricultural land given in circular dated 30-8-2005 Ex. PW1/6 is very close to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act i.e. on 17-6-2005 but court has also to take into consideration the previous 4 years old circular dated 9-8-2001. Subsequent circular Ex. PW1/7 dated 24-1-2008 is not required to be considered at all as it is too remote and of very later period. Request made on behalf of petitioner for taking into consideration rates of land mentioned in circular Ex. PW1/7 dated 24-1-2008 is hereby rejected.13
As there is difference of 74 days (13 days of June + 31 days of July + 30 days of August) in the year 2005 so if average offloading appreciation rate at 10% p.a. of these 74 days is deducted from the price fixed under this circular Ex. PW1/6 dated 30-8-2005 then market value of the land on 17-6- 2005, the date of notification under section 4 of the Act comes to Rs. 17,22,750.25 (17,58,400 - 35,649.75) paisa as per following calculations.
17,58,400 x 10 x 74 = 35,649.75
100 x 365
The minimum price of agricultural land as per circular issued by govt. dated 9- 8-2001 effective from 1-4-2001 was fixed at Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre. If 10% yearly appreciation upon Rs. 15,70,000/- is given for 1538 days counted from 1-4-2001 to 17-6-2005 (365 x 4= 1460 days from 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2005 + 78 days from 1-4-2005 to 17-6-2005), then the market value of the land on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act would come to Rs. 23,47,758.50 paisa per acre as per calculations given below.
(A) One year or 365 days appreciation
@ 10% as on 1-4-2002 = 15,70,000 x 10 =
1,57,000
100
Hence value of land as on 1-4-2002 comes to Rs. 17,27,000/- (Rs.
15,70,000 + 1,57,000) per acre.
(B) One year or 365 days appreciation
@ 10% as on 1-4-2003 = 17,27,000 x 10 =
1,72,700
100
14
Hence value of land as on 1-4-2003 comes to Rs. 18,99,700/- (Rs. 17,27,000 + 1,72,700) per acre.
(C) One year or 365 days appreciation
@ 10% as on 1-4-2004 = 18,99,700 x 10 =
1,89,970
100
Hence value of land as on 1-4-2004 comes to Rs. 20,89,670/- (Rs. 18,99,700 + 1,89,970) per acre.
(D) One year or 365 days appreciation
@ 10% as on 1-4-2005 = 20,89,670 x 10 =
2,08,967
100
Hence value of land as on 1-4-2005 comes to Rs. 22,98,637/- (Rs. 20,89,670 + 2,08,967) per acre.
(E) 78 days appreciation @ 10% as on 17-6-2005 = 22,98,637 x 10 x 78 = 49,121.55 100 x 365 Hence value of land as on 17-6-2005 comes to Rs. 23,47,758.55/- (Rs. 22,98,637 + 49,121.55) per acre.
If both adding figure of Rs. 23,47,758.55 on basis of circular dated 9-8-2001 and offloading figure of Rs. 17,22,750.25 on basis of circular dated 30-8-2005 Ex. PW1/6 are added and then divided by 2 while applying the formula given by Delhi High Court in above mentioned Jai Prakash's case, then the average market value of the land in question as on the date of notification would come to Rs. 20,35,254.30 per acre (or round figure as Rs. 20,35,255 per acre). Petitioner should have been given compensation at this rate by the Collector 15 and allowing compensation at Rs. 15,70,000 per acre is not reasonable and adequate.
In the reference petition, petitioner also claimed some compensation on account of structure or trees but no proof in this regard is produced in evidence so petitioner is held not entitled to any compensation on these accounts. She is entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of land in question only. Accordingly, these two issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. It is held that compensation awarded by Collector at Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre was deficient, inadequate and unreasonable and it should have been at Rs. 20,35,255/- per acre (or Rs. 4,24,011.44 per Bigha or Rs. 21,200.57 per Biswa). The compensation amount thus is liable to be enhanced to such an extent.
Issue no. 3:-
Respondents have taken a ground that reference petition was time barred but no evidence in this regard is brought on record by them. Burden to prove this issue was upon the respondents and they were under obligation to show that reference petition was not filed in the office of Collector within the prescribed time as allowed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. To prove this issue neither any evidence was led nor was any record from office of Collector summoned so in such situation, the reference cannot be treated as time barred. Accordingly in absence of any such evidence, this issue is decided against respondents and in favour of petitioner.
Issue no. 4 (Relief):-
In view of above discussions, reference is disposed off by holding that compensation awarded to petitioner at Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre (or to say Rs. 3,27,083.33 per Bigha or Rs. 16,354.16 per Biswa) by LAC was inadequate and unreasonable. Petitioner was required to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,35,255/- per acre (or Rs. 4,24,011.44 per Bigha or Rs. 21,200.57 per Biswa) for land. Petitioner is thus entitled to enhancement of compensation to 16 the tune of Rs. 4,65,255 per acre (or Rs. 96,928.11 per Bigha or 4846.41 per Biswa) along with 30% solatium under section 23 (2) of Land Acquisition Act.
As possession of the acquired land was not taken till the date of award so petitioner is also entitled to additional amount under section 23 (1-A) at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of award i.e. 17-6-2005 to 11-8-2006.
Petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking of possession of land in question i.e. 2-2-2007 and 15% for subsequent years till the entire payment of compensation is made as per section 28 of the Act. Copy of this order be sent to LAC for information and deposit of balance amount immediately to avoid further burden upon the govt. exchequer. Decree be prepared and file be consigned to record room.
(Ashwani Sarpal)
Dt. 26-4-2010 Additional District Judge